| Did you know? (New Law Passed June 12 2009)
Posted: 8/14/2009 2:37:23 PM | Enforcement is an issue- they prove you were speeding because a cop says he got a reading on a laser gun that said you were speeding. There can't be a mistake about the reading.
You take a picture of someone in a car using a cell phone- well, you will have to be in court to testify as to the taking of the picture- are you willing to miss a day of work to give someone a ticket?
http://web2.gov.mb.ca/bills/39-3/b005e.php I don't believe however that it says how the offence is punishable.
I want to know if an officer is going to be able to search your car to find your cell phone if it's not in plain view when he pulls you over. He is not arresting you, so he should have no entitlement to search incident to an arrest. I mean- he's likely behind you, can he see if your lips are moving? Were you singing along to a song, or talking?
Again, how they are going to prove the offence beyond a reasonable doubt is beyond me. | |
|
| Did you know? (New Law Passed June 12 2009)
Posted: 8/14/2009 4:05:46 PM | Isn't this comparable to the enforcement of mandatory use of seatbelts? In that case, it is also the word of the police officer that is the proof. Also, radar is sometimes challenged. The calibration of the machine and training of the operator can be brought into question.
I think the legislation is a good idea. I see far too many young drivers looking down at their cell phones and not at the road. If it saves a few lives, it is well worth the effort to enforce. | |
|
| Did you know? (New Law Passed June 12 2009)
Posted: 8/14/2009 4:20:29 PM |
http://web2.gov.mb.ca/bills/39-3/b005e.php I don't believe however that it says how the offence is punishable.
You are correct, the amendments do not have a specific punishment section. As a result, s.239 would apply and the matter would be summary conviction with a potential for a maximum $2,000 fine and one year suspension.
Proof of the matter would simply be a cop saying he saw you driving with the cell phone up to your head. If you check the sections you will see that they give a pretty wide definition of the word "use." | |
|
| Did you know? (New Law Passed June 12 2009)
Posted: 8/14/2009 9:37:06 PM | | Holy sheep sh1t!!!! Wheather the law is good or bad is irrelevant. How can we all be expected to give away our liberty so easily and so often? This would have been covered under imprudent driving or careless driving or dangerous driving. Are we going to have people pull to the side or partially to the side of the roadway only to present themselves as a road hazzard? What then is truly gained by the law? The government gains more power over the populous, that is all. Seat belts, texting, smoking in public, anti theft devices these all seem like small things but when you add them up and place them with all the other controls government has over you it becomes an enormous erosion of your freedom. All western governments have been slowly enacting these facist controls slowly, quietly, steadily and we just let it happen. Is it a good law or a bad law? If you want to eventually live under a system of governance that allows you no choices what so ever then it will be a very good law. If you would prefer to choose how to live your life (such as choosing to leave your phone turned off while you are enroute) then it is nothing short of evil. | |
|
| Did you know? (New Law Passed June 12 2009)
Posted: 8/14/2009 10:15:01 PM |
I think the legislation is a good idea. I see far too many young drivers looking down at their cell phones and not at the road. If it saves a few lives, it is well worth the effort to enforce.
Yes far too many young, middle aged, elderly all responsible equally. If the legislation is so good why did it stop here? Why not eliminate all the unnecessary distractions in the vehicle? No more coffee from timmies because who can truly see properly with that cup in their face. No more reading material because if your book is centered on the steering wheel you aint payin attention to driving. No more loose animals in the vehicle, on your shoulder or lap or dashboard, you won't have the maneouverability you need. No more kids, spouses or mother's in-law because they never give you a seconds peace while you are driving and no more stereos ,just a radio with a frequency tuned to traffic reports because that is all you will need to know about and music etc is a distraction. Should we have a pool to see which of these is next in legislation or will it be something else?
They started with drunk driving, nothing could be worse and nothing would kill more people. Next it was seatbelts because nothing else could kill more people. Then smoking and gun control. Now this and eventually we will have to register our kitchen knives but only if we can pass the safe handling and use courses and psychological and background checks in order to possess one. As Charlie Brown would say AUUUGHH | |
|
| Did you know? (New Law Passed June 12 2009)
Posted: 8/15/2009 6:05:21 AM | it should be a law................ cuz than you could grab them by the scruff and curbstomp there inbred heads.......oppppppppps spits loogie center of the windshield
truthfully cuz than you can pin the responsibility of reckless driving without waiting ...me thinks.(clearly defensive driving excludes distractions indeed!)
you don't have to wait for dead people before charges are laid and i believe in proactive things which clearly clarify public safety...like leash laws and things which create a respectful safe street for everyone equal...i just think if you have thousands of pounds of steal you bet i expect a falking leash on ...your not in your comfy living room your on a public street. too many people think the car is an extention of the living room couch ...and it is not! | |
|
| Did you know? (New Law Passed June 12 2009)
Posted: 8/15/2009 7:55:21 AM | Captian Girly can be my lawyer anytime....da onli ting dat mite be problem is dat I don't speak-a-da english to goot!
I agree WHERE IS GOING TO STOP ? Why the hell every time we turn around we have to have laws in place where common sense should prevail.
Here's a recommendation: Cars should be installed with devices that sense when a cell phone is in use.....when its been in use for more than 45 seconds, it automatically sends a signal out to jam the cell phone signal.
You see that way, if a person has an important call that needs to related.....people will have to pull over to concentrate on what they are saying......isn't that point of a cell phone anyway....not for idle chatter!
OR
All cars could have a mandatory handless cell phone installed.....after all they all got radios...so why not?
And I am being serious.....why not look at ways to make it safer rather than PASS ANOTHER FRIGGIN LAW!! | |
|
| Did you know? (New Law Passed June 12 2009)
Posted: 8/15/2009 10:45:00 AM | do you realize how many jobs could be created going to court and squeeling on cell phones...sniffs floor...do you think i could get a government grant to start that business....  see good idea.light lightbulb
perhaps i should ask my worker if she would fund that bus pass if you get a finders fee off the ticket.....sweet. digital processing to send in pictures...go to court to check out sheriffs azzes. tap tap tap......indeed job creation
have a sunny day...even if it has to be in your mind..  | |
|
| Did you know? (New Law Passed June 12 2009)
Posted: 8/17/2009 10:22:11 AM |
Proof of the matter would simply be a cop saying he saw you driving with the cell phone up to your head. If you check the sections you will see that they give a pretty wide definition of the word "use." Yes- but they have to see the cell phone. I assure you my blackberry is narrow enough I can conceal it in my hand and hold it right next to my face. An officer wouldn't be able to see it from behind. If they're from behind, they can't see if you're speaking, nor could they hear you (are you singing? learning spanish? Yelling at a talk show host?), so I don't think they can make an inference that because they saw you with your hand near your ear that you were on a cell phone. Hold your cell phone in your hand so it's not visible, and let them try and prove you were using a cell phone. | |
|
| Did you know? (New Law Passed June 12 2009)
Posted: 8/17/2009 3:50:57 PM | You are quite right... almost.
It is true that if they want to charge you with using a cell phone, it would stand to reason that they should have to see it.
However, if you are doing something that attracts their attention... say, holding your hand in the way it might be held if you were using a cell phone... they might watch you a little longer to see what they might see.
The reality however, is this is another "crime" the police do not have to prove. Regardless of what tools they use... or do not use... speeding is an offence that they observe.
Anyone who has spent any time in traffic court will recognize the first words out of the cops mouth after he has asked and received permission to refer to his notes...
On (insert time and date here) [bold] I observed [/bold]...
This is the same most of the offences under the HTA... running a stop sign... speeding... seat belts... and the list goes on.
The cop does not enter any real proof he saw it... he just says he does... whether he did or not.
And like the blackberry hidden in your hand... All a cop has to do to get the conviction is to state in court that he saw it. Unfortunately, it is then up to you to prove he made a mistake.
Guilty until proven innocent ... Geeee, I love traffic court.... NOT! 
T_M | |
|
| Did you know? (New Law Passed June 12 2009)
Posted: 8/17/2009 6:07:36 PM | If they don't see you with a cell phone in your hand, then clearly they won't charge you. If you are unlucky, they might happen to spot you as your are raising it towards your head. I don't think it will necessarily be the cops that are trailing someone who will see the phone. More likely it will be the cell phone wielding motorist whose car is being passed by a police car that will get noticed.
Best defence will be to either not use your phone, or to use a hands free device. It will be interesting to see how long it takes for this legislation to get proclaimed and come into force.
For those that are interested, in order to get c harged under the proposed amendments, you have to have "use" a cell phone while driving. The word "use" is defined as follows:
"use", in relation to a hand-operated electronic device, means any of the following actions:
(a) holding the device in a position in which it may be used;
(b) operating any of the device's functions;
(c) communicating by means of the device with another person or another device, by spoken word or otherwise;
(d) looking at the device's display; and
(e) taking any other action with or in relation to the device that is prescribed by the regulations
Since the legislation has not been proclaimed, there are no regulations as of yet. | |
|
| Did you know? (New Law Passed June 12 2009)
Posted: 8/17/2009 9:46:01 PM | If you want to eventually live under a system of governance that allows you no choices what so ever
What'd you expect? This province is currently being run by the NDP; if they had their way everybody working would keep their curent jobs, but all their earnings would be placed into a "community" fund to b controlled & distributed by the NDP... after all, THEY know what's good for us and know we can't be trusted to "do what's right" with our cash. We'd wan to use it to improve our own lifestyle ( and that of our children) instead of pooling the $$$ ( with the NDP controling it) so everyone would be equal. (which reminds me, the federal NDP were looking at changing the name of their party but didn't,because the Communist party name was already taken) | |
|
| Did you know? (New Law Passed June 12 2009)
Posted: 8/22/2009 8:52:20 PM |
About high time, that ALL, Provinces pass a law banning talking and texting on cellphones while driving. [
So what's next???
Coming in summer of :
2010: Law passed banning applying makeup while driving.
2011: Law passed banning eating while driving.
2012: Law passed banning shaving ( with an electric shaver) while driving.
2013: Law passed banning drinking non-alcoholic beverages while driving,unless they're in the beverage holder & you use a long straw.
2014: Law passed banning searching in your glove compartment while your vehicle is in motion.
.... since apparently the existing laws that were in place to punish those driving unsafely/imprudently weren't specific enough.
But don't worry, the YCJA will still ensure that those young criminals that steal cars will still be rushed thru the "catch & release" legal system so they can steal more & more vehicles; can't have the police wasting time & resources on the big crimes. | |
|
| Did you know? (New Law Passed June 12 2009)
Posted: 8/23/2009 8:57:37 AM |
Far, too many accidents are caused by people either yakking on their cellphone, or text messaging, while driving.
We don't actually know that is what causes the accidents we only know that this action was taking place during or around the time of the accidents. Unless the people are alive to tell you that texting or talking caused the accident then we are speculating, just as they do with drunk driving or people not wearing seat belts. More than likely the accidents were caused by people not paying attention to the job at hand. If you are crossing a bridge and a car pulls out to pass a truck (it happens) it won't matter much what you were doing there is no evasive action you can take. Is the cop going to blame your texting as cause of the accident? I took a defensive driving thingy in 1986 through the Manitoba and Canada safety councils and this scenario is the only 1 in which a truck driver is not going to be found at fault by the insurance companies, according to these associations. cool huh.
{quote]About high time, that ALL, Provinces pass a law banning talking and texting on cellphones while driving
Ja und vee coult all ver zee same closingk und tink and act zee same und dissenters coult be hexacuted!!!!!!! un neighbors could report one another to the authorities and we can line up for rations etc etc and all live in a left wing utopia. | |
|
| Did you know? (New Law Passed June 12 2009)
Posted: 8/23/2009 8:09:41 PM | | Driving in heavy traffic I can see the law being ok , I live in a rural area and have been the only car on the road, I have made calls and also received calls from friends who want to talk to keep from falling asleep at the wheel. There are two sides to every coin, laws banning anything will not solve the problems. | |
|
| Did you know? (New Law Passed June 12 2009)
Posted: 8/23/2009 10:51:06 PM | People are idiots for not obeying the law and for using your cell phone while driving on a street where you are prone to way more prone to find yourself in a accident, god forbid you jackasses won't pull over to a parking lot ...
If you hit you hit me while you are on your cell and I happen to be able walk out of it and I know you were on your cell phone I will walk over to your vehicle as I calmy ask for your cell to borough as soon as I get I will break it by tossing it away ... then tell you to your face that your an ignorant pompuss idiot for not driving responsibly. | |
|
| Did you know? (New Law Passed June 12 2009)
Posted: 8/24/2009 10:30:05 AM | and also received calls from friends who want to talk to keep from falling asleep at the wheel
So you helped someone who's TOO TIRED to be driving by having this person talk on a phone while driving ( because he's too tired to be driving) ? Or is it your position that it's OK to break some laws, if it's more convenient & you don't think you'll get caught? Man, where's the Darwin Awards when you need them?
( www.darwinawards.com )
Maybe the law should be amended so that the person on the other end of the call ( the non driver) is also ticketed as an accomplice. | |
|
Home
login 
